NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Appellee

,

v.

MATTHEW SCOTT LAYMAN

, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0427

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011

- 158596

- 002 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office , Phoenix By Colby Mills Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office

, Phoenix By Kathryn L. Petroff C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. LAYMAN
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

J O H N S E N
, Judge:

¶1 A jury convicted Matthew Scott Layman of second

- degree burglary, a Class 3 felony. At sentencing, Layman stipulated to having

one historical prior felony conviction , which subjected him to an enhanced sentencing range

. The superior court then sentenced h im to a term of five years' imprisonment and awarded 210 days of pre sentence incarceration credit.

¶2 We have jurisdiction over Layman' s timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes section s 12

- 12 0.21(A)(1) (2014), 13

- 4031 (2014) and

- 4033(A)(1) (2014). 1

DISCUSSION

¶3 Layman argues his stipulation to a n historical prior felony conviction was not made knowingly and voluntarily because the superior court failed to inform him that he was giving up his right to be represented by counsel at any hearing related to the prior conviction. Because Layman failed to object at trial, we review only for fundamental

error. See State v. Mora les , 215 Ariz. 59, 61, ¶ 10, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007).

¶4 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.6 provide s that before the court accepts a defendant's admission of a prior conviction, it must engage in a colloquy with the defendant pursuant to Rule 17.2. S ee S tate v. Geeslin , 221 Ariz. 574, 578, ¶ 13, 212 P.3d 912, 916 (App. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds

, 223 Ariz. 553, 554, ¶ 1, 225 P.3d 1129, 1130 (2010) ; see also Morales , 215 Ariz. at 60, ¶ 1, 157 P.3d at 480

. As part of the

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite
a statute's current version.STATE v. LAYMAN
Decision of the Court

3 Rule 17.2 colloquy , the court must ensure, on the record, that the defendant understands "the constitutional rights which [he or she] foregoes by [admitting the prior conviction], including his or her right to counsel if he or she is not represented by counsel ." Ariz. R. C rim. P. 17.2 (c) (emphasis added ).

¶5 It is undisputed that Layman was represented by co unsel at the sentencing hearing, and as Rule 17.2 (c) reflects, "[i]t is the established law of this state that a court need not advise a defendant of his right to an

attorn ey when he is already represented by one." State v. Mancini , 19 Ariz. App. 358, 359, 507 P.2d 697, 698 (1973); see also State v. Munoz , 25 Ariz. App. 350, 351, 543 P.2d 471, 472 (App. 1975) (noting the holding of Mancini was expressly incorporated into Ru le 17.2(c)). Although Layman argues the record does not demonstrate he "affirmatively understoo d that he would continue to be provided with an attorney at a subsequent 'trial' on his prior," he does not argue he was ignorant of his right to counsel, nor d oes he point to anything in the record that causes us to question whether he understood his right to counsel.

CONCLUSION

¶6 We affirm Layman's conviction and sentence. 2

2 After reviewing the State's answering brief, defense counsel moved to withdraw the opening brief to allow Layman to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Stat e v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). We deny this mot ion.